[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> Sven Pran:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >that pass is basically ambiguous: It shows
> >either no relevant values or willingness to
> >play the last denomination doubled.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >Therefore I consider the trap pass to be part
> >of the convention "negative double" and thus
> >alertable.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> In both cases the pass shows willingness to
> defend against the last denomination named.
> 
> And the Chapter 1 definition of "convention"
> states:
> 
> "However, an agreement as to overall strength
> does not make a call a convention."
> 
> So in Australia such a two-way pass is defined
> as non-conventional, therefore is not alerted.

Does not your alert regulation include a clause (or clauses) to the effect
that an otherwise non-conventional call which includes "side information"
shall be alerted?

Example: A popular agreement in Norway is that an opening bid in 2M shows
exactly 5 cards in that major suit and at least 4 cards in a minor suit.
That bid is "natural" as far as the named major suit is concerned, but it
must still be alerted because of the "side information".
 
IMO the trap pass carries such "side information".

Regards Sven